Nitroadict:I'd argue he was a panarchist, not an anarchist.
I'd say panarchy really is anarchy, at least anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism. Although, from a left-anarchist perspective it definitely isn't anarchy.
Angurse: Nitroadict:I'd argue he was a panarchist, not an anarchist. I'd say panarchy really is anarchy, at least anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism. Although, from a left-anarchist perspective it definitely isn't anarchy.
I would disagree that panarchism is strictly anarchism (unless you take Bakunin literally, when he clarifies that anarchism is about abolishing involuntary authority, but most would agree to the meaning of no archy or no rule at all), but I would agree that panarchism can be a better label to describe "anarcho-capitalism".
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict: I would disagree that panarchism is strictly anarchism (unless you take Bakunin literally, when he clarifies that anarchism is about abolishing involuntary authority, but most would agree to the meaning of no archy or no rule at all), but I would agree that panarchism can be a better label to describe "anarcho-capitalism".
Exactly.
This is nothing more than the "nonarchy" issue of Rothbard. Ultimately Its still a stateless society, so call it what you want.
delete. wrong post. sorry.